Harvey Weinstein, the uber powerful Hollywood producer, made an empassioned plea, on behalf of his close friend Roman Polanski, who has suffered a miscarriage of justice so heinous, that he, and many of his hollywood compatriots felt compelled to write about it on his behalf. Not since Live Aid have we seen so many celebs moved.
Roman Polanski was arrested by Swiss Authorities at a film festival, for a 'so called crime' he committed, aged 44.
When he was 44, the internationally renowned director took a 13 year old to the home of his friend Jack Nicholson. He promised to take her photograph for Vogue. He gave her champagne, and Quaalude. Then he told her to get into a jacuzzi, and while she was dazed and confused, he raped her orally, he raped her vaginally, and he raped her anally.While she asked him to stop. She repeatedly asked him to stop. He told her to keep this a secret from her mother. She didnt.
Then he plea bargained, and when he believed he may actually be punished for the crime he committed, instead of the one his lawyer managed to get a deal for- he fled.He fled for 32 years.
Mr Weinstein speaks from the heart when he talks of the artistic merit of his friends offerings, and of the life path he took which was filled with tragedy. Mr.Weinstein talks poetically about the suffering his friend has gone through, by not being allowed to re-enter the US. He dismisses the crime of drugging, and raping, a 13 year old child- as a 'so called crime'. He speaks with confidence of the connections he, and his friends have, and how they will use them, to get this 'matter' cleared up. Apparently he is going to go visit Governer Arnie, and others are going to petition the Clintons, they even have the ear of Nicholas Sarkozy.
He tells us that Mr Polanski served his time, 'whichever way you look at it'. Now I may not be the brightest spark in the box, but in which country is living around the world, in palatial homes, continuing to direct acclaimed films, a punishment. Apparently the fact that he didnt get to pick up his oscar in person- is enough on the statute books that serve Mr.Weinstein and Mr.Polanski-to be considered justice. I had never seen that on our statute books.
And herein lies the problem. Apparently Mr.Polanski belongs to a set where the same rules dont apply. His artistic genius, his survival of the holocaust, and the tragic loss of his wife- means that he apparently has carte blanche, to do as he pleases. If Mr.Weinstein and Mr.Polanski, and their friends, donot view the drugging and raping of a child as a crime, the only question I have, is -at what income level, level of celebrity, level of connection, do you just get to bring children to the homes of your friends, and rape them, and it become just a perk? Sarkozy, Schwarzenegger, and Clinton, are apparently not elected officials- who are answerable to the people-how could we have thought that?. For people like Mr.Weinstein, the ears of these people, is a perk of celebrity and power.
Mr.Polanski, Mr.Weinstein, and everyone of the morally bankrupt celebrities today, who have spoken up about this 'miscarriage of justice', shows me very clearly the world we live in. I am reassured to know that people with this kind of power, and this kind of money, fully believe they have the right to use the connections that they have, to help a friend evade prosecution for this 'so called crime'. It makes me feel very positive about the world, that the drugging and raping, of a 13 year old child- is not rape, as long as it is a powerful celebrity that is raping her.
It reassures me that women like Deborah Winger, and Whoopi Goldberg- are standing up to tell the world that this 'so called crime' is not really that bad, its not like its 'rape rape' after all. Well if a case where a undisputed facts are that a 13 year old was repeatedly fucked against her will, after being drugged, is not rape= then really, I would like to know what constitutes rape at all?
Oh wait, I am not reassured. I am fucking angry. Disgusted. Horrified. Dumbfounded. They are words I would use to describe how I feel, when I see the stance of those crying out, about the injustice of arresting a man who used his money and power to groom a child, then drugged and raped her. The shock compounding itself, after realising so clearly, we live in a society where celebrity is all, and rape is just a perk to that celebrity- and while Harvey Weinsteins article was abhorrent- it may just be a very true reflection of the society I live in.
Slummy Mummy is a regular on the Daily Mail Hating Feminazis from Hell facebook board. And we heartily recommend her own blog, Deeply Flawed But Trying.
Posts
anyone else might think that paedophile rapists kind of DESERVE a bit of tragedy in their lives...
ReplyDeletegood post, i'm linking to it.
ReplyDeleteWho knows, may I please tweet that comment up as FeminazeryTwitter's word on the subject?
ReplyDeletems. kitton, you may indeed!
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDelete"He gave her champagne, and Quaalude. Then he told her to get into a jacuzzi, and while she was dazed and confused, he raped her orally, he raped her vaginally, and he raped her anally.While she asked him to stop. She repeatedly asked him to stop."
ReplyDeleteAIUI, he's been accused of these things, but the only thing that's been shown in court is that they had consensual sex.
Yes, obviously the extent to which a 13-year-old can consent to sex with an adult is questionable, but it clearly exists to some degree (hence the distinction in law between unlawful sex with a minor and raping a minor).
Saying "I think the court's wrong and it was actually rape, because it suits my ideology" is just as wrong as saying "I think he should get away with his crimes because he's a great artist".
John B, I'm not sure what's questionable about plying a child with drugs and alcohol, and engaging in sexual activities she has clearly expressed a wish not to be part of. The original conviction was for the aforementioned offences - it was only through a plea bargain that the charges were lessened. The transcripts of the 13 year old's interviews (found here: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/polanskib10.html) are distressing and quite clearly show that this child was not a willing party to Polanski's advances. Furthermore, he was quite aware that she was underage - even if you don't believe this child was 'raped' according to your definition, I would suggest that Polanski making advances upon a child is a cause for concern in itself. Although to be quite honest I don't get what is ambiguous about this - he drugged her. If it were consensual, she would not require drugging. And that's just for starters.
ReplyDeletePolanski is not being accused of rape to fit an ideology. He is being accused of rape because that is what it was.
I think you're missing the point: the claim that Polanski drugged the girl and then had sex with her whilst she was not a willing party was *not* established as true in court.
ReplyDeleteIf it was, then he'd have been convicted of rape, because drugging someone to have sex with them is in itself rape and having sex with someone who expresses that they aren't willing is in itself rape. But it wasn't, so he wasn't.
My "ideological" point: in very general terms, as left/liberals we tend to avoid the assertion that (irrespective of an actual court's actual findings) everything alleged by the prosecution about a defendant is true. We leave that to the Daily Mail and its readers.
The fact that Polanski certainly made advances on someone underage (which as you say is disturbing in a 44-year-old man in a position of responsibility) shouldn't cancel out that basic starting point - any more so than the fact that an individual accused of terrorism certainly has absurd and unpleasant extremist religious views should mean we automatically believe that they're guilty of terrorism.
I do understand your point, John. I just can't help but feel that the official verdict is a soft one given the repeated testimony of the victim. Regardless of that, it's at the very least statutory rape and the larger issue is that Polanski chose to flee the country rather than complete the 90 day psychiatric testing program (he had 42 days left when he disappeared) despite having, through a plea bargain, confessed to a lesser crime than the one he was initially charged with. I can't reconcile these actions with the notion that he is in any way innocent or misunderstood - running away from a soft sentence is an action you would typically associate, rightly or wrongly, with a guilty mentality. It's true that he was not convicted of rape but it's also true that courts are not infallible, particularly when rich and famous people are involved.
ReplyDeleteI think the real problem I have with this, did-he-or-didn't-he aside, is that Polanski has been portrayed as a victim despite having had the opportunity to skip bail, not serve his sentence and continue to make movies and money. Were he the man next door, I don't think there would be nearly as much sympathy for him.
gosh, was that our first very own rape apologist?
ReplyDeleteMr Polanski did not dispute the testimony of the girl, he was offered a plea bargain- and that plea bargain allowed him to plead guilty to lesser charges. Given that Mr.Polanski did not dispute her testimony, I will not be doing so.
ReplyDeleteThis was rape, out and out- the fact that he plea bargained, and then fled from a lesser charge, when he feared the bargain would not be honored, does not mean he is not a rapist, or give me any reason to dispute the childs testimony.
@Lolly, I agree with that: he should have served some time in jail for the unlawful sex charge, as any ordinary 40something man who admitted sex with a 13-year-old would (even in 1977), and by denying that his celebrity backers make themselves ridiculous.
ReplyDelete@who knows, err, no. See my comment on Victoria's post.
@deeplyflawed, the fact that he didn't dispute the testimony in court is irrelevant. If I were accused of a serious crime that I hadn't committed, and was offered the chance to receive a light punishment for a less serious crime that I'd clearly committed, then I'd take it. It'd be nice to prove myself not guilty of the more serious crime in court rather than just have it dropped, but 'nice' doesn't mean 'worth the risk of being convicted of something I didn't do'.
(and yes, the same calculation would also hold if I was guilty. This is why I'm not a fan of plea bargains in the judicial system in general: they let the guilty off, and fail to clear the not-guilty. Or the guilty-of-a-less-serious-charge, as here).